MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed to challenge the order dated 04. 09. 2000 passed by the State Government exercising the powers under Section 63 read with Section 64 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short as the Act of 1959 ). By the said order the State Government declared the petitioner ineligible to contest election under the Municipalities Act for next six years. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are stated hereinafter.
(2.) THE petitioner was elected as Chairman, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, on 29. 11. 1994. By an order dated 22. 05. 1999 the State Government while exercising the powers under Sub-section 4 of Section 63 of the Act of 1959 placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner by way of filing a writ petition before this Court assailed the validity of the order of suspension dated 27. 05. 1999. This Court by an order dated 08. 06. 1999 while admitting the writ petition for hearing pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 22. 05. 1999. In compliance of the order dated 08. 06. 1999 the petitioner was allowed to take over the charge of the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu, by an order dated 09. 06. 1999 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Jhunjhunu. The State Government decided to initiate an inquiry by a Judicial Officer as envisaged under Section 63 of the Act of 1959 against the petitioner. Accordingly, a charge-sheet was severed upon him and the petitioner was directed to submit an explanation. The petitioner while denying the allegations submitted explanation in detail to satisfy the competent authority with regard to his conduct pertaining to the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner also averred that he has been subjected to the inquiry for extraneous considerations at the behest of certain political persons and the respondent No. 4, Mr. T. C. Bohra, Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu. The State Government by the order impugned dated 04. 09. 2000 declared the petitioner ineligible to contest elections for next six years on the basis of the inquiry report dated 2. 08. 2000 submitted by the Joint Legal Remberencer (II)-cum-Judicial Enquiry Officer. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned dated 4. 09. 2000 is not only an outcome of extraneous considerations but is also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice to the extent that the State Government failed to set-forth any reason to support the conclusion.
(3.) A reply to the writ petition has been filed denying the allegations of mala fides and further stating that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities act, 1959. I have heard counsel for the parties. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to mala fides against respondent No. 4 is not substantiated by the sufficient reasons. Infact no material is available on record on basis of which mala fides against the respondent No. 4 could be alleged. The respondents in their reply too, denied the allegations of malafides and stated that the order passed is based on the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer after holding regular inquiry as provided under Section 63 of the Act of 1959. The petitioner has utterly failed to substantiate the allegations of malafides, therefore, no cognizance of the same can be taken. ;